Published: July 19, 2008 05:07 pm         

Genealogy: Word-of-mouth stories are often true

Last week, I told the story of an alternative theory concerning the parentage of Abraham Lincoln. My summary was taken from The Abraham Lincoln Genesis Cover-up: The Censored Origins of an Illustrious Ancestor by R. Vincent Enslow. Elslow’s paper can be read in its entirety at the Genealogy Today e-magazine Web site at www.genealogyto

day.com/us/lincoln/index.html.

The story, passed down in the Enslow family and a tradition in the Rutherford and Buncomb county areas of North Carolina, states that our 16th president was the illegitimate son of Abraham Ensloe, a businessman and horse trader of Rutherford County, and Nancy Hanks, who was placed in the Ensloe household as a young girl and stayed there into adulthood. It states that Abraham Lincoln was actually born in North Carolina and that his mother Nancy Hanks later married Thomas Lincoln, who then gave his name to young Abe.

This story serves as an example that family researchers often encounter in their work — an oral tradition within the family about some story or relationship. My experience is that these family word-of-mouth stories are often true, or contain an element of truth. If explored, they can often lead to documented truth.

Let’s examine this Lincoln story closer. Enslow’s North Carolina story is backed up by three things. First, the alternative story of Lincoln’s genesis existed during Lincoln’s lifetime. (To weaken this evidence, however, is that there were several different stories, and the Abraham Ensloe story is just one of these).

Second, the author Enslow cites the testimony of more than 50 people from Lincoln’s past who state that some part of the North Carolina story is true. Although not primary evidence, like a document, this is interesting because these people didn’t all know each other but knew different parts of the story.

Third, Enslow presents a photograph of Wesley Ensloe, the son of Abraham Ensloe and his wife, and therefore the possible half-brother of President Lincoln. The resemblance is striking. (See www.genealo

gytoday.com/us/lincoln/wes

ley.html). Enslow then goes on to describe the physical attributes of Thomas Lincoln (the accepted father of the president), and his description (and a photograph I looked up) do not much resemble President Lincoln. (See Thomas Lincoln’s photo at home.att.net/~rjnor

ton/Lincoln81.html). So this photographic evidence is also somewhat compelling.

But Enslow’s paper is otherwise very vague when it comes to a time line and other specifics. He presents no primary documentation to back up the above evidence. For instance, if Nancy Hanks was placed in the Abraham Ensloe home as a child (possibly apprenticed) by her impoverished mother or uncle, there should be a court record of such an event. Of course, the lack of a record doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, but Enslow presents no concrete primary documentation at all to substantiate any part of the story.

My biggest criticism of Enslow’s paper is that it is jumbled and disorganized — it skips around a lot and the story isn’t presented chronologically. He begins his document, not by patiently and neutrally explaining the issue, but by ranting and blustering that there has been a cover-up for the past 200 years. It doesn’t set the tone needed for a reader to accept his writing as serious work challenging the genesis of a president.

Next week we will look at the traditional story of Abraham Lincoln’s birth in Kentucky. What is the evidence for this?